linux-kernel - Re: Sleeping BUG in khugepaged for i586

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170608203046.GB5535@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:30:47 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Sleeping BUG in khugepaged for i586

On Thu 08-06-17 22:18:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 08-06-17 10:05:57, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:48:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 07-06-17 13:56:01, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > I agree it's probably going to bisect to 338a16ba15495 since it's the 
> > > > cond_resched() at the line number reported, but I think there must be 
> > > > something else going on.  I think the list of locks held by khugepaged is 
> > > > correct because it matches with the implementation.  The preempt_count(), 
> > > > as suggested by Andrew, does not.  If this is reproducible, I'd like to 
> > > > know what preempt_count() is.
> > > 
> > > collapse_huge_page
> > >   pte_offset_map
> > >     kmap_atomic
> > >       kmap_atomic_prot
> > >         preempt_disable
> > >   __collapse_huge_page_copy
> > >   pte_unmap
> > >     kunmap_atomic
> > >       __kunmap_atomic
> > >         preempt_enable
> > > 
> > > I suspect, so cond_resched seems indeed inappropriate on 32b systems.
> > 
> > Then why doesn't it trigger on 64-bit systems too?
> > 
> > #ifndef ARCH_HAS_KMAP
> > ...
> > static inline void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page)
> > {
> >         preempt_disable();
> >         pagefault_disable();
> >         return page_address(page);
> > }
> > #define kmap_atomic_prot(page, prot)    kmap_atomic(page)
> > 
> > 
> > ... oh, wait, I see.  Because pte_offset_map() doesn't call kmap_atomic()
> > on 64-bit.  Indeed, it doesn't necessarily call kmap_atomic() on 32-bit
> > either; only with CONFIG_HIGHPTE enabled.  How much of a performance
> > penalty would it be to call kmap_atomic() unconditionally on 64 bit to
> > make sure that this kind of problem doesn't show on 32-bit systems only?
> 
> I am not sure I understand why would we map those pages in 64b systems?
> We can access them directly.

But I guess you are primary after syncing the preemptive mode for 64 and
32b systems, right? I agree that having a different model is more than
unfortunate because 32b gets much less testing coverage and so a risk of
introducing a new bug is just a matter of time. Maybe we should make
pte_offset_map disable preemption and currently noop pte_unmap to
preempt_enable. The overhead should be pretty marginal on x86_64 but not
all arches have per-cpu preempt count. So I am not sure we really want
to add this to just for the debugging purposes...

I would just pull the cond_resched out of __collapse_huge_page_copy
right after pte_unmap. But I am not really sure why this cond_resched is
really needed because the changelog of the patch which adds is is quite
terse on details.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs